Intel processor revenue share drops less than 1% as AMD's share grows by more than 2%

AMD and Intel by far the two largest processor firms around and Intel is
many times larger than AMD. Intel holds a huge percentage of the global
processor market, while AMD is a distant second in both revenue and marketshare.

Research firm iSuppli released its global
statistics for the processor market. According to iSuppli, Intel holds a
massive 79.7% of the world’s processor revenues leaving AMD with 10.9% of the
global processor revenue.

When the revenue numbers are compared to Q1 2007, Intel’s revenue share in
the processor market has dropped by 0.7%. At the same time AMD has been able to
grow its share of the processor market revenue by 2.2%. According to iSuppli,
AMD’s gain is a sign that consumers are responding better to AMD products.

ISuppli estimates that about half of AMD’s growth in revenue market share
came at the expense of Intel and that the remainder came at the expense of the
smaller processor makers. ISuppli also says that average selling prices from
both Intel and AMD didn’t decrease in the first quarter of 2008 signaling that
price wars between Intel and AMD have stopped.

Between Intel and AMD the two firms hold 92.7% of the total microprocessor
market worldwide estimated to be worth about $286.5 billion in 2008. Despite
the weakened U.S. economy, computer sales are still going strong.

Apparently you can't understand that CPU is not needed for any truly intensive computation anymore, GPU does all the heavy lifting these days. Read up on F@H, BadaBOOM and other modern GPGPU applications, noob :-)

If you think Intel being so twitchy and hysterical about its lousy Larrabee chip is without any reason, you definitely need to do some basic reading on the topic.

In complex CAD systems you have a lot of complex 3D rendering to do, so it benefits from GPU quite a lot.

Many older media production suites are CPU bound, but newer software like PowerDirector move from CPU to GPU in order to dractically increase media encoding speed. Do you use MS-DOS based software a lot so that you can criticize quad-core CPUs for not supporting your MS-DOS code properly? Think about it.

Elaborate on server apps? Sure, no problem. nVidia sells GPGPU cards just for those servers. So if you wanna do computational heavy lifting on your servers - use CUDA with nVidia GPUs. You'll do your computations much faster on those GPUs compared to traditional quad-core CPUs.

quote: In complex CAD systems you have a lot of complex 3D rendering to do, so it benefits from GPU quite a lot.

Nowhere did I say that it didn't.. only that CPU horsepower is very beneficial as well.

quote: Many older media production suites are CPU bound, but newer software like PowerDirector move from CPU to GPU in order to dractically increase media encoding speed. Do you use MS-DOS based software a lot so that you can criticize quad-core CPUs for not supporting your MS-DOS code properly? Think about it.

quote: Elaborate on server apps? Sure, no problem. nVidia sells GPGPU cards just for those servers. So if you wanna do computational heavy lifting on your servers - use CUDA with nVidia GPUs. You'll do your computations much faster on those GPUs compared to traditional quad-core CPUs.

Hmm.. let's see.. sure, I'll go through all the added expense and risk on my SQL server, or the server that runs my SAP, of additional cards and fancy GPUs... or I'll go with a couple of gonna-work quad-core CPUs. Yeah, I'm sure that's as obviously easy of a choice as *you* claim it to be.

I guess GPU power is more relevant once you start doing realtime high-quality designs like architectural prototypes for clients with beautiful 3D renderings of apartments, etc. CPU doesn't help here, only GPU can help with that.

quote: Vegas

So if Vegas supported only single-core CPUs, you'd criticize dual and quad-cores now, right? ;-) Just because Vegas doesn't understand what is multithreading?

quote: that's as obviously easy of a choice

You're right, it's always easier to stay back and don't upgrade your hardware/software for as long as you can, but this somehow does not slow the progress down.

quote: So if Vegas supported only single-core CPUs, you'd criticize dual and quad-cores now, right? ;-) Just because Vegas doesn't understand what is multithreading?

No.

quote: You're right, it's always easier to stay back and don't upgrade your hardware/software for as long as you can, but this somehow does not slow the progress down.

That's not the choice I was positing. I was talking about the choice between putting in quad-core CPUs that costs the CPUs themselves and one reboot versus messing with GPUs and add-on cards and the development costs of adopting CUDA for the specific tasks of a particular server. If you think that's an obvious choice.. to go the GPU route.. then you're a fool.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis